right and i understand that and actually u can run mx 2004 on linux up till the activation screen comes up and that kills it thats why say dw mx still works on linux because it doesnt have that screen and yeah i know they arent gunna build it just 4 me but it seems kinda silly that the only thing keeping it from working isnt the program itself, its the activation screen. i just think at the rate linux is starting to move forward that at some point it will have to be dealt with. just would be nice:) would also be nice if m$ would be a decent company and stand by their junk they sell and i wouldnt have to worry about this in the 1st place i would put it on my xmas list but i been a bad bad boy this yr!
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:54:39 -0500 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 8:46 AM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot) >> >> > i would sure like to hear from someone at MM though about why no linux >> versions of studio 2004 though >> >> Because Linux is not a viable market for PC software. >> Unfortunately it doesnt come down to which is technically better, it >> comes back to market share. > >And testing and support. Take CFMX for example - it runs just fine on MacOS >X, but MM doesn't support this. The testing and support costs are just too >high for the share of the market. > >To deliver Studio 2004 you've got several immensely complex applications >that would need to be fully regressed and tested on the new platform plus >unknown support costs to train and configure a support infrastructure for a >new environment. > >As testing costs are often the lion's share of a products budget adding a >new environment would be significantly expensive. Throw in the fact that >you're talking about an environment (Linux) which is, itself, >non-standardized (from an interface perspective) and much more variable than >OS X or Windows and those costs increase (I don't think it's ridiculous to >assume that Linux testing would cost more than either Mac OS or Windows >testing). > >Add on to that the fact that very few Linux desktop applications have been >successful and the fact that a significant percentage of Linux adherents >won't even consider purchased closed-source software and you've really got a >no-win situation for the vendor. > >Jim Davis > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:186715 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
